“When that discretion falls to be exercised, there is a presumption in favour of trial by Judge alone.”
“7. The factual complexity arises because there are, as amongst the most important issues in this case, issues as to theinterpretation of CCTV images of the deceased as she walked towards the spot at which she entered the water before dying. The question is whether the images, which as usual are of a quality which is much less good than could be desired, show her carrying a bag over her shoulder or not. 8. The contention of the claimant is that she had left the bag behind in his flat where it was ultimately found and she was not carrying it with her to the place where she died. The contention that will be advanced for the Chief Constable is that the CCTV images show or probably show that she was carrying the bag when photographed. If she was, then since the bag was not found with the clothes left on the side of the water, still less found with her body in the water, there has to be an explanation as to how the bag got back to the claimant’s flat and the claimant is unable to produce an explanation. That is an issue that was before the jury in Luton Crown Court when the claimant was convicted. But the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence which was before the Crown Court was what led the Court of Appeal to quash the conviction and order a retrial. The upshot is that the evidence that will be put before the Court in this libel action will be different and will have been assembled against the background that gave rise to the quashing of the conviction. 9. The other matters of complexity arise from what is said to be inconsistencies in the witness statements of the claimant and other witnesses about his movements in Bedford that night. They go to the question of whether he had an alibi, or not, or an opportunity, or not, to cause the death of this unfortunate young woman.”
“10. It goes almost without saying that it is quite possible to accept the submission that those are complicated issues but still take the view that they are ones that can properly and conveniently be tried with a jury. Indeed, had the Crown Prosecution Service decided to present evidence against the claimant, having taken the view that they could properly do so, exactly those matters would have been the subject of the retrial.”
“16. The advantage of a judgment giving reasons will be that a Judge will have to set out his or her reasons in full on all the issues in the case. If a Judge in the present case trying it alone were to come to the view that the defence of justification had not been made out but that the defence of qualified privilege had been, that could be fully and clearly laid before the public in a way which would not be possible if the trial was with a jury.”
“17. ... If the application for trial by Judge and jury were made by the claimant, it seems to me it would be a stronger case than where it is made by the defendant. The rationale of trial by jury is that the jury stands between the subject and the state. The jury is an institution which primarily is for the protection of the individual against the state.”
“19. Overall, with considerable hesitation, I have come to the view that the presumption in favour of trial by Judge alone is not displaced. The advantages of a reasoned judgment in this complicated case, in particular complicated by the issues of law, is, it seems to me, a factor which outweighs all the others.”
“In this case the Judge’s decision to vary the mode of trial to judge alone was, it is submitted, wrong in principle and/or based on an approach that gave too much weight to the advantages of a reasoned judgment and not enough to the many important factors in favour of jury trial. The Judge also overstated the extent to which the issues of law are complicated and the extent to which that question was relevant to the decision as to mode of trial. ...”
“the nature of the issues in the justification defence and the status of the Defendant as a public authority argue overwhelmingly in favour of trial by a jury not a judge sitting alone.”
“The Claimant is a foreign national whose English is imperfect and who has confidence in a judge to reach a fair and impartial decision in this dispute between him and an English public authority. The Claimant wishes to see the evidence against him analysed by a judge and the results of that analysis set out in a public judgment rather the result being in an unanalysed jury verdict. The right of an individual citizen accused of the most serious crime to have a reasoned judgment is plainly an extremely powerful factor in favour of judge alone trial (as the Judge rightly held).”
“The suggestion that the public might have less confidence in a verdict of a judge sitting alone, set out in a reasoned judgment, does not bear serious examination. There are powerful arguments that the opposite is true. A jury verdict will be “for the Claimant” or “for the Defendant”